Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Lets stick to the official inquest testimony signed by the witness

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    You do like to find reasons to avoid evidence. Newspapers which report the inquests as transcripts provide a lot more context, as in what was asked. But you want to make up the context so you can twist their responses to mean either the opposite, it just so you can claim doubt and think that justifies ignoring it completely.

    So, rather than dodge yet another question, why don't you answer it? Because you can't, dodging is your answer.


    - Jeff

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      I’d also ask of course why this has to be what it looked like? Why did the apron have to have been cut through the waistband?
      It doesn't. Nowhere is there anything to make one think the apron looked anything like that. But Trevor drew on a picture so now that's his evidence.

      - Jeff

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

        It doesn't. Nowhere is there anything to make one think the apron looked anything like that. But Trevor drew on a picture so now that's his evidence.

        - Jeff
        As I suspected Jeff, he’s simply using this….

        “My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin – I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street. It is impossible to say it is human blood.”

        …… to say that it was a corner piece, therefore cut across the waistband, which allows him to manufacture this image of an apron with a piece absent. But he’s ignoring this part……

        “My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin – I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street. It is impossible to say it is human blood

        …….which give us a different meaning. Brown was saying in effect “my attention was drawn to the corner of the apron where the string was attached (and therefore not the bottom corner) where the blood spots were located.”


        Trevor has used this to try and move the goalposts in favour of his theory so that he can say that the piece must have been a corner piece (cut across the waistband) which would then allow for the possibility of a missing piece. He’s then demanded that any other potential explanation must include this falsehood. We now know that this isn’t the case and either my suggestion or Wickerman’s for example (plus any others that might have been suggested) are the likely descriptions.

        When we add to this suggestion the witnesses who all saw Catherine wearing an apron we can se that we are on the right track. The fact that no one ever mentions a missing piece seals the deal. The 2 pieces made up the whole apron that Catherine was undoubtedly wearing.

        It couldn’t be much clearer. Hence Trevor’s recent responses. It really should be case closed on this particular issue Jeff.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          Why did the apron have to have been cut through the waistband?
          Not that I'm agreeing with Trevor, Herlock, but I think there are several reasons to think this.
          Firsty, as you rightly pointed out, Brown drew attention to the bloodstains in "the corner of the apron with a string attached". This wouldn't make much sense unless there was only one corner with a string still attached. So either the string on the other top corner had been cut off or, more likely, the entire corner had, which would necessetate a vertical cut through the waistband. This is indicated by the second point; every other item of clothing around her waist had a vertical cut through the waistband - skirts, petticoat, even the pockets tied round her waist. If she was wearing it, why wouldn't her apron be cut likewise?
          Thirdly... It's the easiest place to cut fabric like an apron which is otherwise loose. You could do it one handed. Slip the knife under the waistband and pull up, using the tension provided by rhe strings around the body to slice through it. One straight cut all the way down would be easiest, no need to get fancy cutting round corners. Once you've done that you have two pieces connected by the strings under the body, just cut the string on one piece and you're away. Leaving the other piece on the body "apparently worn", but no longer actually attached, so liable to become displaced on the trip to the mortuary.
          ​​​​​​Fourthly, PC Long found a piece of apron in Goulston Street. Not just a piece of cloth, but apparently one that was recognisably part of an apron. What distinguishing features could indicate an apron? I'd say, just the waistbamd and attached string. If the piece was cut from.the bottom, what would indicate it was from an apron?

          Taken together, I feel this points to a vertically cut apron.


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

            Not that I'm agreeing with Trevor, Herlock, but I think there are several reasons to think this.
            Firsty, as you rightly pointed out, Brown drew attention to the bloodstains in "the corner of the apron with a string attached". This wouldn't make much sense unless there was only one corner with a string still attached. So either the string on the other top corner had been cut off or, more likely, the entire corner had, which would necessetate a vertical cut through the waistband. This is indicated by the second point; every other item of clothing around her waist had a vertical cut through the waistband - skirts, petticoat, even the pockets tied round her waist. If she was wearing it, why wouldn't her apron be cut likewise?
            Thirdly... It's the easiest place to cut fabric like an apron which is otherwise loose. You could do it one handed. Slip the knife under the waistband and pull up, using the tension provided by rhe strings around the body to slice through it. One straight cut all the way down would be easiest, no need to get fancy cutting round corners. Once you've done that you have two pieces connected by the strings under the body, just cut the string on one piece and you're away. Leaving the other piece on the body "apparently worn", but no longer actually attached, so liable to become displaced on the trip to the mortuary.
            ​​​​​​Fourthly, PC Long found a piece of apron in Goulston Street. Not just a piece of cloth, but apparently one that was recognisably part of an apron. What distinguishing features could indicate an apron? I'd say, just the waistbamd and attached string. If the piece was cut from.the bottom, what would indicate it was from an apron?

            Taken together, I feel this points to a vertically cut apron.

            Hi Joshua,

            That's possible, but Trevor's version then has half long gone, and his cut is to sever half an apron into quarters, etc. And that's not required.

            We don't know for sure how the cut was done, and most versions I've seen have been along the lines of a horizontal cut, or starting high on the side then diagonally downwards, etc, sort of removing a triangle section. Your suggestion of how Trevor's vertical halving might work is interesting, but Trevor's presentation goes beyond that which obscures the issue. I could, however, see how what you suggest might fit with the "apparently" modifier, though I'm not entirely sure we should over emphasize one word, your suggestion does make it feel natural. And, your suggestion also has her wearing the apron, which fits with all of the other evidence.

            Overall, yes, I think what you suggest could be added to the list of possible ways the apron could be cut into two pieces and still fit the descriptions given at the inquest, and still have her wearing an apron that was even possible to wear. Trevor keeps repeating that none of that is possible, but it's been demonstrated so many times that what he says is impossible and what is actually impossible must be viewed as different things entirely.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

              Not that I'm agreeing with Trevor, Herlock, but I think there are several reasons to think this.
              Firsty, as you rightly pointed out, Brown drew attention to the bloodstains in "the corner of the apron with a string attached". This wouldn't make much sense unless there was only one corner with a string still attached. So either the string on the other top corner had been cut off or, more likely, the entire corner had, which would necessetate a vertical cut through the waistband. This is indicated by the second point; every other item of clothing around her waist had a vertical cut through the waistband - skirts, petticoat, even the pockets tied round her waist. If she was wearing it, why wouldn't her apron be cut likewise?
              Thirdly... It's the easiest place to cut fabric like an apron which is otherwise loose. You could do it one handed. Slip the knife under the waistband and pull up, using the tension provided by rhe strings around the body to slice through it. One straight cut all the way down would be easiest, no need to get fancy cutting round corners. Once you've done that you have two pieces connected by the strings under the body, just cut the string on one piece and you're away. Leaving the other piece on the body "apparently worn", but no longer actually attached, so liable to become displaced on the trip to the mortuary.
              ​​​​​​Fourthly, PC Long found a piece of apron in Goulston Street. Not just a piece of cloth, but apparently one that was recognisably part of an apron. What distinguishing features could indicate an apron? I'd say, just the waistbamd and attached string. If the piece was cut from.the bottom, what would indicate it was from an apron?

              Taken together, I feel this points to a vertically cut apron.

              Fair points Joshua

              On your first point though, if the string had been pulled from one end couldn’t it have been that the string was only then sticking out from one corner?

              On your second, couldn’t the apron have been pulled aside or just become twisted to one side so that it avoided the vertical cuts that were found on the rest of her clothing?

              On your third, can we be sure that the apron was loose when it was cut. Wouldn’t it have been easier to have pulled from the bottom corner to make the apron taut then to cut in from the side and then doubt.

              On point 4, a question….can we be sure that Long knew at the time that it was part of an apron? I know that he says this at the Inquest but can we be sure that he didn’t just pick it up as a piece of cloth only to find out that it was part of an apron later on?

              Im certainly not saying that you’re not right though Joshua. You could well be.

              So alternatively it could have been….

              Click image for larger version

Name:	23E219B9-5808-4A6F-8325-3DDC7F7DD75C.jpeg
Views:	71
Size:	16.0 KB
ID:	764892

              Again, I haven’t a clue why it’s uploaded this way up or if it can be changed?

              So it could have been a single diagonal cut (thin broken line) or 2 cuts, vertical and horizontal (thick broken line)? With point A being the possibility of the string being pulled through from the left. No suggestion of any missing piece though?
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                You do like to find reasons to avoid evidence. Newspapers which report the inquests as transcripts provide a lot more context, as in what was asked. But you want to make up the context so you can twist their responses to mean either the opposite, it just so you can claim doubt and think that justifies ignoring it completely.

                So, rather than dodge yet another question, why don't you answer it? Because you can't, dodging is your answer.


                - Jeff
                I dont know what you want me to answer

                The inquest depositions were taken down by the court official and then read by each witness before signing so there should be no mistakes. So why do you and others want to rely on newspaper reports which are clearly incorrcet? I will tell you why because the newapaper reports prop up what you and the other two of the three stooges want to believe.


                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  I dont know what you want me to answer

                  The inquest depositions were taken down by the court official and then read by each witness before signing so there should be no mistakes. So why do you and others want to rely on newspaper reports which are clearly incorrcet? I will tell you why because the newapaper reports prop up what you and the other two of the three stooges want to believe.


                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  There’s nothing in the Inquest depositions that support your theory that there was a piece missing. So why do you claim that there is?
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes

                  “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                    It doesn't. Nowhere is there anything to make one think the apron looked anything like that. But Trevor drew on a picture so now that's his evidence.

                    - Jeff
                    And I am still waiting for you and the other two to explain how the two pieces could have made up a full apron based on how they were decsribed and subsequenlt matched.

                    i dont know where this sugestion that there was third piece comes from not from me. The two pieces matched had to have come from the same side of the apron, The corner piece with a string attached top left or right, and the piece matched had to have come form the botrtom left or right.

                    Had she been wearing an apron and the killer had cut a piece as per the old accepted theory, do you not think it would have been visible when the body was stripped and documented with her clothing, and would have been decsribed as "one old white apron with piece missing"?

                    You are fighting a losing battle because you have no valid arguments to out forward to negate what i have said,

                    Yous can see others are starting to look at all of this in a sensible light


                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      And I am still waiting for you and the other two to explain how the two pieces could have made up a full apron based on how they were decsribed and subsequenlt matched.

                      i dont know where this sugestion that there was third piece comes from not from me. The two pieces matched had to have come from the same side of the apron, The corner piece with a string attached top left or right, and the piece matched had to have come form the botrtom left or right.

                      Had she been wearing an apron and the killer had cut a piece as per the old accepted theory, do you not think it would have been visible when the body was stripped and documented with her clothing, and would have been decsribed as "one old white apron with piece missing"?

                      You are fighting a losing battle because you have no valid arguments to out forward to negate what i have said,

                      Yous can see others are starting to look at all of this in a sensible light


                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Post 1086
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes

                      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        There’s nothing in the Inquest depositions that support your theory that there was a piece missing. So why do you claim that there is?
                        There was no piece missimg because if she was not wearing an apron when killed but been in possession of two old pieces of white apron.

                        That fits with the evidence, one piece found in her possessions, and the other found in GS.


                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • But she was seen wearing an apron. Therefore she was wearing one. End of story.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                            But she was seen wearing an apron. Therefore she was wearing one. End of story.
                            The witness testimony on those witnesses was never tested as to its accuracy or reliabilty for the reasons previoulsy stated.

                            You have to deal with the facts from when her body was found and the events thereafter.


                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              he said "Apparently wearing" that statement creates a doubt, and certainly does not confirm that she was wearing an apron.

                              he also states " A portion" thats a far cry from saying "An apron" so the mortuary piece could not have been the remains of a full apron otherwise he would have described it an apron.

                              also the mortuary piece was described as an old piece of apron. if she had been wearing an apron why was it not described as an old white apron with piece missing?

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              This has been said a couple of times,"Apparently wearing"..

                              The apron was cut in half or almost,the clothes and body were "messed" around with enough, and because of this "apparently wearing "
                              was the more precise observation/description - see the "mess" of the clothes and body in Frederick Foster's drawings
                              of Kate based on Dr. Brown's sketch.

                              Even Watkins,Morris, Holland ,Harvey, who were there at the crime scene first were silent about it,as the body and layers of clothes were a mess,it probably was not so obvious.

                              It was left it to Brown/Collard to tell/describe the "wearing of the apron", as they were present when the body was stripped carefully by mortuary keeper Davis. We have to go to the Brown/Collard's observations, they were there, they eyeballed it and knew the "exact/precise" position/size of the apron/string in her body/clothes.

                              Trevor/co cannot tell us the "exact/precise" position of the apron/string in relation to the mess that was Eddowes's body/clothes in the mortuary , just guessing and in no way to be believed.

                              Collard was not cross-examined as to how he put that list and accounted for the apron, so it is vague and unreliable and irrelevant
                              as to the wearing of the apron.The eyeballing as the body was stripped was more important.
                              Last edited by Varqm; 08-07-2021, 10:54 PM.
                              Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                              M. Pacana

                              Comment


                              • .
                                i dont know where this sugestion that there was third piece comes from not from me. The two pieces matched had to have come from the same side of the apron, The corner piece with a string attached top left or right, and the piece matched had to have come form the botrtom left or right.

                                Had she been wearing an apron and the killer had cut a piece as per the old accepted theory, do you not think it would have been visible when the body was stripped and documented with her clothing, and would have been decsribed as "one old white apron with piece missing"?
                                It comes from you.

                                You keep saying that the 2 pieces didn’t make a complete apron when they were fitted together. How hard can this be?

                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X